the misc. debate thread

this is the thread where you can take side debates that are not related to the specific topic of a thread and continue them here

starting with today's debate from the picture thread:

Originally Posted by MissingPerson

And yup, I'm all about the atheism. Sometimes I have to stay up late to get all my atheism done, in fact. Mmm, atheism. I have no beef with believers until they do something stupid on God's say-so, though. And I like your buildings - good call on the spires. They're freaking awesome.

Originally Posted by BlackSwan

Atheists are believers too.

Originally Posted by MissingPerson

Then bald is a hair colour, as the old saying goes.

Originally Posted by BlackSwan

That saying isn't old! You just made it up.

Originally Posted by ivankay

So i gather there are different atheists. Those who believe there is no God and those who know God doesn't exist. The ones that know are just as annoying as those who know there is a God. You ask them how they know and it pretty much comes out the same (essentially "I just know."....actually you would just believe....knowing requires backup).

So yes, atheists believe.

And on that note, one of the reasons i believe in a God concept:

Originally Posted by SubBass49

agnostic then?

Originally Posted by ivankay

me? Not since my early 20's have i used that description of myself. i tipped over on the believing in God concept when i connected it with my belief in infinity. And too much magical stuff has happened in life for me not to emotionally connect with the belief there is a One that is all. i chucked it up to God is EVERYTHING (that is and isn't). The God most people present through religion was too limited with all the human baggage connected to It. i guess you could still say i'm (and everyone technically) agnostic because that means you don't know either way.

i don't know shit other than i am.

Originally Posted by Monklish

Here's the true meaning of agnosticism, just because everyone keeps talking about it today:

"Agnostic" is a term which has been generalized in its definition over time. What agnosticism really is NOT being unsure whether or not there is a God, but rather that it is impossible for man to know whether or not God exists.

Originally Posted by chairmenmeow47

and on top of that, agnostic also means that the knowledge of god existing doesn't have any impact on your day to day life anyways. i don't think there's anyway for me to know in my lifetime, nor do i think it would have an impact on my life.

Originally Posted by jdaws

how can it be said that "knowing" would have no impact when the dominant statement is that "knowing" is impossible..

Originally Posted by chairmenmeow47

you're right, it's a bit redundant and i've seen definitions that don't include that second part. but to me it means that we can be satisfied not knowing as it has no bearing on our day-to-day life.

Originally Posted by BlackSwan

Originally Posted by chairmenmeow47

and on top of that, agnostic also means that the knowledge of god existing doesn't have any impact on your day to day life anyways. i don't think there's anyway for me to know in my lifetime, nor do i think it would have an impact on my life.

That addition is similar to what some call apathetic agnosticism. I've found that like atheists, a view like that is more rooted in your feelings about belief in god than it is in any actual knowledge about the nature of reality.

Originally Posted by BlackSwan

Originally Posted by chairmenmeow47

you're right, it's a bit redundant and i've seen definitions that don't include that second part. but to me it means that we can be satisfied not knowing as it has no bearing on our day-to-day life.

Like atheists, even most agnostics are rooted in some belief. You believe that is impossible for humans to know whether or not God exists.

An important question to ask yourself if you are agnostic and think you know it all because of your belief is... Is it possible for humans to know truth?

Originally Posted by ivankay

That where Decartes comes in and comes up with the only knowable truth "i think, therefore i am." i can come to the conclusion "i" exist because i think and that is truth. i can't verify you aren't an illusion though.

Originally Posted by chairmenmeow47

excellent points (BlackSwan) because you're right, it is a belief unto itself. i guess truth needs to be defined also. i think seeking truth is something we always do; it isn't something that you discover and then you're done. it's something you always work towards like being a good person. your work is never done. plato had some theory that i don't remember the name of and my notes are at home about how somethings are always striving to be a thing; they are constantly in motion. for example, all the particles in a chair are constantly working to be that chair; their work is never done. i feel the same thing with finding "truth" or any knowledge in a general sense; your work is never done. so i guess i don't really know if it's possible for humans to know truth without knowing what truth is, but whatever it is, it is a struggle.

that probably doesn't make much sense though since i'm not a philosophy major or anything, it's something i really want to get a degree in after my current degree though.

Originally Posted by BlackSwan

Originally Posted by ivankay

That where Decartes comes in and comes up with the only knowable truth "i think, therefore i am." i can come to the conclusion "i" exist because i think and that is truth. i can't verify you aren't an illusion though.

It's Descartes. But reciting something someone wrote in 1644 as the basis of what you believe to be the only knowable truth is kind of empty. What does that mean to you? If "I think, therefore I am", what exactly does "am" really mean? Do you know the full breadth of your existence merely by "thinking", or is that knowledge limited and therefore "You think, therefore you sorta are."

Originally Posted by ivankay

Since all my other senses can be potentially decieved, whatever "evidence" they provide can be suspect. my thoughts come from me. i experience them. This is evidence to me that "i" exist or am. The "i" is the thoughts because the body could be illusion. i'm not sure what you mean by "full breadth of existence". Please clarify. The only thing i can be sure of is the thinking. i was thikning how my thoughts could be decieved where i believed i was having them, but they were actually a creation from another external source. In my limited perspective, i can't imagine how that could be, but you never know.

i'm at werk. We need to symposium this with some booze and stuff.

Originally Posted by BlackSwan

(in response to chairmenmeow47) It's good that you are open to it. What you are talking about reminds me of a claim by Sextus Empiricus. While it may not be possible to know or know that you do not know, you can continue searching for something that might be knowable. If this kind of thinking interests you, you should look into philosophical skepticism and more specifically Pyrrhonian skepticism, rather than trying to get comfy in agnosticism.

Originally Posted by PotVsKtl

Originally Posted by BlackSwan

I've found that like atheists, a view like that is more rooted in your feelings about belief in god than it is in any actual knowledge about the nature of reality.

So the idea that it is not possible to know the nature of reality as it relates to higher powers is not related to knowledge about the nature of reality?

Originally Posted by PotVsKtl

Originally Posted by BlackSwan

Like atheists, even most agnostics are rooted in some belief.

Everything is a belief. The idea that I won't go plummeting into space on the next rotation is a belief. It's irrelevant.

Originally Posted by Monklish

Originally Posted by chairmenmeow47

and on top of that, agnostic also means that the knowledge of god existing doesn't have any impact on your day to day life anyways. i don't think there's anyway for me to know in my lifetime, nor do i think it would have an impact on my life.

Like I said, I was just citing the original Huxley meaning. Since then it's been redefined and evolved by a number of people. This came up recently in my job because our company claims to be "technologically agnostic," meaning that we don't push Mac or Windows specifically. I pointed out to my boss that he doesn't know what the word means, and that what he means to say is technologically secular.

Technologically agnostic, of course, would mean that we--as a fucking IT consulting firm--don't believe we can have knowledge of the existence of technology.

Originally Posted by Monklish

Originally Posted by BlackSwan

That addition is similar to what some call apathetic agnosticism. I've found that like atheists, a view like that is more rooted in your feelings about belief in god than it is in any actual knowledge about the nature of reality.

Like atheists, even most agnostics are rooted in some belief. You believe that is impossible for humans to know whether or not God exists.

An important question to ask yourself if you are agnostic and think you know it all because of your belief is... Is it possible for humans to know truth?

That doesn't really mean much coming from someone who is proud of having a GED.

Originally Posted by Monklish

I'm proud of having a GED because it helped me avoid dealing with jerkoffs who go around spouting uninterpretable pseudo-intellectual babble, like yourself.

Originally Posted by stinkbutt

Originally Posted by BlackSwan

It seems more like you are both misinterpreting what I am saying.

The Frozen Pilgrim defense

Originally Posted by BlackSwan

There is nothing convincing about an ad hominem argument.

Originally Posted by Monklish

That is not an ad hominem argument. See, this again is why I'm glad I didn't bother going to college. You went, paid tons of money, and don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

An ad hominem attack would be if I said your argument was invalid because you're dumb. Which you are. But that's not what I said. What I said is that your argument is invalid because it is incomprehensible babble. That is a criticism of your argument, not you.

Would you like me to keep pointing out the advantages of a GED? =)

Originally Posted by Monklish

Now what's even funnier about all this is before you falsely accused me of an ad hominem argument, you yourself were guilty of trying to invalidate my argument on the grounds that I only have a GED. Which, since you supposedly studied argument or debate, you should know is an argument from authority--which IS invalid.

So, so far you've misappropriated ad hominem in your attempt to defend your own argument from authority, all in the interest of proving that what you're saying is remotely knowledgeable logic.

Good work, putz.

Originally Posted by BlackSwan

I got paid to go to college, but that is not the point here. You are using a simplistic understanding of an "ad hominem argument" to try to serve you own position. By criticizing my argument on the basis that it is "incomprehensible babble", you are in turn criticizing me, my ability to argue and my intelligence in general.

Originally Posted by BlackSwan

I wasn't trying to invalidate your argument on the grounds that you only have a GED. There was no point in trying to argue against your post because it was ad hominem, so I took a cheap shot at you.

Originally Posted by Monklish

A simplistic understanding of ad hominem? I'm sorry, would you care to enlighten me on some other meaning of it? Cause one doesn't exist. Ad hominem means attacking the man and not the argument. I attacked the argument and threw in a commentary on you as a person. My comment on your person was not my argument.

If I explain why your argument is stupid and then say you're stupid, that doesn't make it an ad hominem attack.

maybe you should go back to school.

Originally Posted by BlackSwan

It not about meaning. It's simplistic because you were defining it to only mean a direct abusive personal attack, like your example of calling me dumb. You attacked the argument by calling it "silly" and said "I was interpreting "belief" in a bizarre way"...

You never explained anything. I tried to clarify, but your attack remained the same.

Originally Posted by zajaa

Originally Posted by Monklish

I'm proud of having a GED because it helped me avoid dealing with jerkoffs who go around spouting uninterpretable pseudo-intellectual babble, like yourself.

boasting about not having gone to college is fucking stupid.

Originally Posted by WhyTheLongFace

boasting about going to college is kind of dumb too. It's about the intelligence not the diploma.

/devil's advocate

Originally Posted by locachica73

Agreed...

coming from a non college person with a GED.

Originally Posted by zajaa

granted. but college is about more than just gaining intelligence. it's four incredibly important, formative years in the lives of young adults. school is not for everyone, but i would say the more people who achieve higher education, the better.

There was a comic once that said something about spending thousands of dollars to send their kid to a university and he came back only knowing how to bounce a quarter in a glass. I know people with four year degrees who can't get jobs and when they do make less money then I do. It just depends on the person and the motivation.

Originally Posted by zajaa

Eventually making a ton of cash is definitely not the point of going to college. Although for some people that's the only goal. It's a shame.

Originally Posted by WhyTheLongFace

Originally Posted by zajaa

granted. but college is about more than just gaining intelligence. it's four incredibly important, formative years in the lives of young adults. school is not for everyone, but i would say the more people who achieve higher education, the better.

Yeah I understand that. I am actually enrolled in college. I am just saying how those are irritating positions to you so is
"What do you mean you're not going to school? You need college"
"You won't be successful without some form of education"
"I graduated from ______ university which means I know more than you"
That's all I'm saying

Originally Posted by BlackSwan

Originally Posted by locachica73

It just depends on the person and the motivation.

There we go.

Originally Posted by zajaa

well the first two of those are said by people trying to encourage others, which i see as a good thing, even at the risk of being misinterpreted as being condescending. the third one is obviously rude and unnecessary, but in many cases it's probably true.

the anti-college positions i pointed out are terrible because they come from a position of ignorance, since the person hasn't been to college and cannot judge, and secondly because they seem very defensive, like the person actually feels inferior for not completing higher education, so they turn it around on those who actually made the effort and achieved it.

Originally Posted by locachica73

I do not feel inferior by any means, although it seems you feel a little superior in your arguement. Some people don't have the option of going to a 4 year college and do the best they can with what they have. Someone with such a high education should probably recognize that.

Originally Posted by WhyTheLongFace

ok the 1st are not encouraging because you're assuming whats good for you is good for everyone else. If I go the route I want to go without heading through college then what's the point for college. You obviously think college is/was necessary for you and I do as well. But it isn't some out of this world idea that maybe some people can bypass college and be successful.

And I don't know how you can defend the 3rd statement. I can find someone who didn't go to college who is smarter a lot of college graduates. It isn't some crazy Matt Damon janitor success story either I'm talking regular people. The statement "I went to college and am smarter than you because of it" is just as ignorant as "I didn't go to college and I'm smarter than you because of it"

And you seem more defensive as if you think your diploma makes you smarter and someone saying it doesn't takes away from your college experience.

Originally Posted by BlackSwan

Originally Posted by zajaa

well the first two of those are said by people trying to encourage others, which i see as a good thing, even at the risk of being misinterpreted as being condescending.

I'd say they first two are not very convincing and inaccurate before condescending.

Originally Posted by zajaa

(in response to loca) oh well i don't mean you in particular, i'm speaking in general.

i imagine there are legit circumstances that make it difficult for people to go to college... but if it's a matter of income, i do not understand, because grants, loans and scholarships are always available. if it's a matter of poor grades in high school, i really can't sympathize.

Originally Posted by zajaa

the notion that the average college graduate is smarter/more intelligent/etc than the average person who did not attend college is not ignorant or indefensible... it's common sense. it's not very 'nice' but it's reality: some people are smarter than others, better at certain things than others, etc. i believe in treating people equally regardless, but if you want to get down to it then sorry but the average person is smarter for going to college.

i personally don't feel like anyone is 'taking away from my college experience'. that is one thing that no one can take away. i just really wanted to offer a protest against this common attitude of putting down college. perhaps i should not speculate that it comes from 'inferiority' like i said, maybe that is unfair. but either way, i think it's just bad advice to discourage people in their educational aspirations.

Originally Posted by PotVsKtl

You don't seem particularly familiar with the definition of intelligence.

Originally Posted by zajaa

sounds like the pot calling the kettle black lolz

Originally Posted by zajaa

and please, enlighten me

Originally Posted by locachica73

Originally Posted by zajaa

i think it's just bad advice to discourage people in their educational aspirations.

I do not recall anyone discouraging people from educational aspirations, although I do think it is a little crazy for an 18 year old who just went through 12 years of school to decide what they want to do with the rest of their lives, commit thousands and thousands of their future salary and 4+ years of their time without knowing for sure. I know people who have master degrees in whatever it is they decided to go to school for and either hate thier jobs because they felt pressured to make that choice at such a young age or they do something completely different then what they went to school for.

Originally Posted by WhyTheLongFace

(in response to zajaa) Ok I give you that average person w/ college degree>average person. But you don't know this person from a hole in the wall so for you to play down their intelligence and look someone you just met in the eye who doesn't have a college degree and think "I'm smarter than them" without even having a conversation to gauge their intelligence is your superioty complex coming in to play.

And your logic doesn't make sense. I don't know where you went to college but let's say it was ranked #100 on best colleges in the world. A respectable rank and graduating from there is an accomplishment but does that mean everyone who graduated from the 99 schools ranked above is smarter than you? By your theory, yes.

And no one is discouraging college, like I said before I am in college so clearly I think it's good for me and I wouldn't discourage anybody from going this route. But if someone told me "School isn't for me I am going to do (________)" then who am I to say, "That's dumb you shouldn't do that school worked for me it will work for you. And if you don't go to college you'll always be dumber than me"

To be honest I have learned a lot in my almost 3 years of college but I havent learned much more than I would have had I stuk my self in a library for 3 years. To be honest I am using college for what it has now become, a networking facility. Yes I am gaining the basic skills needed in my profession but I use it to network so that when I go out I can be advanced in my profession. Also this little piece of paper doesn't tell me I am smarter than anyway but it's going to open a door that otherwise would be close. Going to college is a more intelligent business move? I'll give you that. Going to college makes you more intelligent than the next man or woman? Naw I can't give you that G.

Originally Posted by zajaa

(in response to loca) i have heard that most people don't end up working in the field that their degree is in. so this idea of 'what they want to do for the rest of their lives' is bogus. like i said before, college is not vocational school, and it's not just about segueing into a job.

Originally Posted by zajaa

(in response to WhyTheLongFace) make up ur mind

Originally Posted by WhyTheLongFace

Ok let me break it down for you buddy.
If you take the same person with the same DNA and send them to college they are going to learn more. But if you took two different people you wouldn't know whose smarter.

To make it easier for you to understand edit my post and instead of "average person" put "Person X". Then read the 2nd statement where i say "smarter than the next man or woman. It should click in your mental now.

Originally Posted by locachica73

If going to college isn't to segue into a job then please enlighten me what it is about. Is it so you can tell people who didn't go to college that you are smarter?

Originally Posted by Dale Gribble

I know this isn't much of a contribution..... but it doesn't hurt to have a degree. just saying.

Originally Posted by locachica73

It wouldn't hurt, in fact it is absolutely a plus in the working world. But that does not mean someone is smarter because they have a degree. The previous president of the multi million dollar company I work for who retired and made more money then anyone I know was the smartest person I have ever met. He could take any contract and read it and find any and all loop holes that could possibly come back and bite us in the ass. The person who replaced him, who went all the way in college, has nothing on the other guy.

There are many circumstances that can make it impossible for someone to go to college, it does not make them less smart then someone who's family has the money to put them through school.

Originally Posted by zajaa

i will take that question as sarcasm.

certainly, having a degree will benefit your chances of getting a better-paying or cushier-than-average job. that's not something i would deny. but did you consider that perhaps becoming more educated is an end in itself? increasing your knowledge, learning to think critically, to think in new ways, from new points of view... this can only enrich your life, and in turn the lives of those around you. and the net effect on all of society is undeniable; a well-read and educated populous is preferable than the alternative.

i dunno, this seems obvious to me like it doesn't need further explanation...?

Originally Posted by Dale Gribble

I went to college for the bewbs.

Originally Posted by captncrzy

The irony of this arguement makes my head want to explode.

Originally Posted by zajaa

(in response to loca) that's such a cop out. the families who dont "have the money" often get their entire educations paid for by grant money, while the kids of those who make too much to qualify for aid pay back college loans for years.

Originally Posted by WhyTheLongFace

Originally Posted by zajaa

make up ur mind

ps you forgot the quote the rest of my post. I like to see your opinion. (no sarcasm)

Originally Posted by Courtney

As someone who has a graduate degree and taught undergraduates for a period of time, I have given a fair amount of thought to the value of education and its correlation to intelligence.

I think what's tripping up quite a few of you in this thread is that you have no specific, concrete definition of intelligence. Surely, someone who is able to perform well academically exhibits a certain type of intelligence, but it may not be the same type of intelligence as someone who exhibits street smarts. Howard Gardner's theory on multiple intelligences has been quite influential in my own thinking on what it means to be "smart."

Higher education teaches a very specific set of academic-related skills. These skills may or may not be applicable in the real world after graduation, largely dependent on the type of education you receive and the type of job you choose. I tend to advocate a liberal arts undergraduate experience, because it emphasizes critical thought process (which I believe is highly useful throughout life) over pre-professional training, but that's a personal choice. In any case, a college-educated person is nearly always going to finish the experience with increased fluency in the specific set of academic-related skills taught to them. Whether or not this counts as an increased intelligence is dependent on your definition of intelligence.

As to the question of whether the average college-educated person is more intelligent than the non-college educated person, that's trickier to say. My gut says that yes, the average college-educated person is probably more intelligent, given that being (a certain kind of book-)smart makes K-12 school easier which would mean you might be more encouraged to go to college. However, I think that there are certainly outliers who are too smart for their educational setting to handle, who would be bored and less likely to seek out higher education. I also think that there are lots of people who are all different kinds of "smart" in ways unrecognized by the traditional educational system.

Last edited by chairmenmeow47; 02-27-2009 at 02:57 PM.

Originally Posted by malcolmjamalawesome

It's when we discuss Coachella that we are at our collective dipshittiest.

Re: the misc. debate thread

I didn't notice this thread and just replied on a related subject in the Lent thread. I guess I need to copy that into here? And read all of the above quoted text? Yikes.

yeah, somehow the whole agnostic/athiest discussion ended up in both the lent and the picture thread. what i copied above was from the picture thread, not the lent thread.

it's just been an insanely slow week for me, so i thought i'd try to clear everyone out of the picture thread since that wasn't really relevant. and since random debates happen in other threads, it might be nice to have a place to go to continue those debates. or this may never get used, either way, it killed some time till i get off and that's all that matters to me

i would think your discussion is somewhat appropriate for the lent thread, but feel free to move it here if you have time to kill like me!

Originally Posted by malcolmjamalawesome

It's when we discuss Coachella that we are at our collective dipshittiest.

Re: the misc. debate thread

yeah, somehow the whole agnostic/athiest discussion ended up in both the lent and the picture thread. what i copied above was from the picture thread, not the lent thread.

it's just been an insanely slow week for me, so i thought i'd try to clear everyone out of the picture thread since that wasn't really relevant. and since random debates happen in other threads, it might be nice to have a place to go to continue those debates. or this may never get used, either way, it killed some time till i get off and that's all that matters to me

i would think your discussion is somewhat appropriate for the lent thread, but feel free to move it here if you have time to kill like me!